from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are more common than many people think. Diabetics nowadays who rely on insulin shots aren't getting their medicine from pigs/cows or other mammals -- and haven't been for decades. Modern sources of insulin come from vats of genetically engineered bacteria. So what about GMOs and GMO-produced products in our food supply? Most Americans have definitely eaten some GMO food, but is there any end to GMO experimentation in the wild now?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The shortest distance between the Earth and Mars varies depending on where the two planets are in their respective orbits. In July 2018, Mars will be a little under 36 million miles away (pretty close to the closest possible distance of 33.9 million miles). However, it's not quite as simple as shooting a big rocket aimed in the right direction. If astronauts are going to survive the trip (and the return?), no one has the technology to do that yet. Manned space exploration sounds like a noble venture, but funding it seems to be a big problem.

How does the US measure up in the modern space race? Perhaps we're asking the wrong questions, and the space race shouldn't be about competition as much as global cooperation and collaboration. Over 70 countries have some kind of space program now, but maybe we shouldn't be trying to elbow our way past fellow humans to claim mining rights in deep space? [url]

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The concept of creating superhumans using genetic engineering has been around for quite some time in science fiction, but now that it's almost becoming a practical thing to do, there are some scientists calling for a moratorium on experimenting with germline engineering until we can debate the issue and come to some consensus on what should be considered ethical. Treating diseases with drugs/radiation/whatever may let an individual patient live longer, but messing with embryonic DNA could have more lasting effects because whatever genetic edits are made will be passed down to future generations (well, unless genetically modified humans are purposely made sterile...). This kind of medicine is going to be controversial for the foreseeable future, but it's going to be done somewhere as the science and technology behind it gets better.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The time to debate the merits and risks of genetically engineering our children is nearly over-ripe. The technology to select physical traits for animals exists for breeding custom single-celled organisms, laboratory rats and desirable farm animals. It wouldn't be a technological feat to apply gene editing techniques to humans, but it certainly raises some serious ethical questions over whether such activities should be allowed or under what circumstances they would be permitted.

an invention that may be the most important new genetic engineering technique since the beginning of the biotechnology age in the 1970s. The CRISPR system, dubbed a "search and replace function" for DNA, lets scientists easily disable genes or change their function by replacing DNA letters. During the last few months, scientists have shown that it's possible to use CRISPR to rid mice of muscular dystrophy, cure them of a rare liver disease, make human cells immune to HIV, and genetically modify monkeys.

Unfortunately, rivalry between scientists claiming the credit for key parts of CRISPR threatens to spill over into patent litigation:

[A researcher at the MIT-Harvard Broad Institute, Feng] Zhang cofounded Editas Medicine, and this week the startup announced that it had licensed his patent from the Broad Institute. But Editas doesn't have CRISPR sewn up. That's because [Jennifer] Doudna, a structural biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, was a cofounder of Editas, too. And since Zhang's patent came out, she's broken off with the company, and her intellectual property -- in the form of her own pending patent -- has been licensed to Intellia, a competing startup unveiled only last month. Making matters still more complicated, [another CRISPR researcher, Emmanuelle] Charpentier sold her own rights in the same patent application to CRISPR Therapeutics.

Things are moving quickly on the patent front, not least because the Broad Institute paid extra to speed up its application, conscious of the high stakes at play here:

Along with the patent came more than 1,000 pages of documents. According to Zhang, Doudna's predictions in her own earlier patent application that her discovery would work in humans was "mere conjecture" and that, instead, he was the first to show it, in a separate and "surprising" act of invention.

The patent documents have caused consternation. The scientific literature shows that several scientists managed to get CRISPR to work in human cells. In fact, its easy reproducibility in different organisms is the technology's most exciting hallmark. That would suggest that, in patent terms, it was "obvious" that CRISPR would work in human cells, and that Zhang's invention might not be worthy of its own patent.

Whether obvious or not, it looks like the patent granted may complicate turning the undoubtedly important CRISPR technique into products. That, in its turn, will mean delays for life-changing and even life-saving therapies: for example, CRISPR could potentially allow the defective gene that causes serious problems for those with cystic fibrosis to be edited to produce normal proteins, thus eliminating those problems.

Although supporters of patents will argue as usual that they are necessary to encourage the discovery of new treatments, CRISPR is another example where patents simply get in the way. The discoveries were made by scientists in the course of their work in fundamental science at academic institutions, not because they were employed by a company to come up with a new product. According to some, the basic application of CRISPR to human cells that everyone is fighting over may even be obvious. The possibility of legal action will doubtless discourage investment in companies working in this area, and thus slow down the flow of new treatments. As usual, the only ones who win here are the lawyers.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The classic question of "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" is not that easy to answer. There are a lot of unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) questions about the origins of life. What came first: DNA, RNA or proteins? How did chirality start? We have a few clues, but without a time machine, we can't quite observe what actually happened. Here are just a few scientific probes that could help us understand the early stages of our biosphere.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some folks just don't like the idea of killing animals for food, but clearly there are plenty of people who don't have a problem with eating meat. Technology might have an answer -- if meat grown in a lab can be considered a humane way to treat living tissues. Here are just a few attempts at making fake meat.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The overuse of antibiotics may be leading us into the "post-antibiotic era" where we'll face numerous bacteria that are resistant to our most advanced drugs. We may need to develop different strategies for identifying antibiotics or try various phage therapies to fend off antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Here are just a few links on finding new antibiotics and using bacteriophages in medicine.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you look closely enough at nearly anything, you're bound to find some fascinating details. With the right tools, you can see single-celled organisms are literally everywhere (and viruses are even more ubiquitous). The biodiversity of soil is obviously important to farmers, but there are other interesting things we can find out when we quantify the dirt under our feet. If you've ever wondered what's in dirt, check out these links on soil.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The costs of analyzing DNA have come down significantly over time, so it's becoming increasingly common to sequence DNA and discover all kinds of biological curiosities. It's not quite as fast and easy as they make it look on detective shows on TV, but DNA analysis has made some pretty amazing advances. Here are just a few examples of genetic testing that you might have missed.